deriins + Kraan.

Attachment to Independent Case Review Report For CDRU # 635_ Case file # 95-283477 .

Material Examiner: Malone (RQ)

Remarks:

One materiality assessment was received for CDRU #634 (95-283469) and CDRU #635 (95-283477) as these two (2) cases were combined for trial. These cases should be

reviewed together.

No transcript. Guilty plea.

INDEPENDENT CASE REVIEW REPORT

Independent Review conducted by: Steve Robertson

Area(s) of Expertise: | Hair and Fiber Review commenced at: 11:15AM (Time), 03/13/2001 (Date) File #: 95-283477

Laboratory #(s): 80602055

Examiner(s) & Symbols

Reviewed Not Reviewed Reviewed Not Reviewed RQ xo a o a Oo a 0 Oo

Oo ia) a

Materials Reviewed Trial testimony transcript(s) of: Testimony Date(s):

Laboratory Report(s):

Laboratory Number: 80602055 ; July. 22, 1988 Laboratory Number:

Laboratory Number:

Examiner Bench Notes of: RQ

Laboratory Number: 80602055

Was any other material reviewed? XO Yes Q No

If yes, please identify and/or describe the material: | Submitting agency letter (dated 5-25-88)

Results of Review

File #: 95-283477 Item or Specimen # Reviewed: Q1 (also, K1, K2 from 80602056)

Review of Laboratory Report(s) and Bench Notes:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses

Did the examiner perform the appropriate tests in a scientifically acceptable manner, based on the methods, protocols, and analytic techniques available at the time of the original examination(s)? O Yes ONo X O Unable to Determine

2 eS gauge Yas

Are the examination results set forth in the laboratéry repo i ) Supported and ‘adequately documented in the bench notes? OYes X GNo \JO Unable to Determine

: TRL aap

Review of Testimony:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses

XQ Transcript not available.

3) Testimony consistent with the laboratory report(s)? O Yes QNo J Unable to Determine

4) Testimony consistent with the bench notes? a Yes QNo J Unable to Determine

\

5) Testimony within bounds of examiner's expertise? CO Yes OQNo- OC Unable to Determine

(5 \

~~ Comments 4 (Set forth by above question #, if applicable. Use “Additional Comments” Sheet, if needed)

File #: 95-283477

#1: With microscopic hair comparison, even with the best notes, there is no way to determine the comparison

was performed correctly.

#2: The examination results set forth in the laboratory report are supported by the bench notes, but the

documentation is marginally adequate. The notes are not dated or initialed and are in pencil. RQ uses

abbreviations to indicate the microscopic characteristics of the hair. These abbreviations are difficult to interpret.

The hair match was apparently verified by a second examiner.

Review completed at: 11:30 AM (Time), 03/13/2001 (Date)

Total time spent conducting review (to nearest 1/4 hour): 0:15 hour

I hereby certify that I conducted this review in an independent, unbiased manner and that the results of my review are fully documented on this report consisting of a total of 3 pages.

03/13/2001

4 i (Signature) (Date)

Page 3 of 3

Initials: Su /